3 ms·

Regarding grand jury indictments, it's very, very rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict somebody, so that isn't necessarily a good measure of the quality of

by teuobk 9y ago

Regarding grand jury indictments, it's very, very rare for a grand jury to refuse to indict somebody, so that isn't necessarily a good measure of the quality of the case against the accused. Of roughly 162,000 federal cases brought before grand juries in 2010, indictments were returned for all but 11 of them. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-i...

dijit 9y ago
Devils Advocate here. Could that be that law enforcement do not bring cases to the grand jury unless there is significant evidence already? If they have clear requirements it could just be that they're being selective about what they submit.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I would hope that were the case, but evidence, e.g. from convictions reversed on account of DNA evidence, show that it is not always so. While the grand jury system may appear to protect innocent defendants, I wonder if it does the opposite. A grand jury might have a disposition to allow a case to proceed when in doubt, on the grounds that the matter will be sorted out in a trial, while the fact that a grand jury has made a decision may bias the trial jury towards conviction. Another practice that has demonstrably been abused is the offer of something approaching immunity in exchange for testimony. We know there is a co-defendant, but nothing else so far in that regard. The swatting of as respected a character as Brian Krebs shows that law enforcement can be manipulated into a precipitate action, especially when there is a deadline, and in this case, Hutchins was about to leave their jurisdiction. I have no opinion as to whether Hutchins is guilty of anything, but I hope his case is dealt with quickly, and above all, justly.
marcoperaza 9y ago
Yeah, the joke is that you could indict a ham sandwich. But in seriousness, the bar is supposed to be low. The prosecutor needs to present enough evidence to convince the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a crime. You have to have some evidence of guilt. And like dijit says, prosecutors aren't in the business of prosecuting hopelessly unwinnable cases, which is what you would have if you can't even show probable cause.

by teuobk 9y ago

dijit 9y ago

Devils Advocate here. Could that be that law enforcement do not bring cases to the grand jury unless there is significant evidence already? If they have clear requirements it could just be that they're being selective about what they submit.

mannykannot 9y ago
I would hope that were the case, but evidence, e.g. from convictions reversed on account of DNA evidence, show that it is not always so. While the grand jury system may appear to protect innocent defendants, I wonder if it does the opposite. A grand jury might have a disposition to allow a case to proceed when in doubt, on the grounds that the matter will be sorted out in a trial, while the fact that a grand jury has made a decision may bias the trial jury towards conviction. Another practice that has demonstrably been abused is the offer of something approaching immunity in exchange for testimony. We know there is a co-defendant, but nothing else so far in that regard. The swatting of as respected a character as Brian Krebs shows that law enforcement can be manipulated into a precipitate action, especially when there is a deadline, and in this case, Hutchins was about to leave their jurisdiction. I have no opinion as to whether Hutchins is guilty of anything, but I hope his case is dealt with quickly, and above all, justly.

marcoperaza 9y ago

Yeah, the joke is that you could indict a ham sandwich. But in seriousness, the bar is supposed to be low. The prosecutor needs to present enough evidence to convince the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a crime. You have to have some evidence of guilt. And like dijit says, prosecutors aren't in the business of prosecuting hopelessly unwinnable cases, which is what you would have if you can't even show probable cause.